Thursday, February 3, 2011

Lee Strobel and A.N. Sherwin-White

I was gratified recently to learn that a post I wrote more than three years ago has generated sufficient interest that a conservative Christian named John Fraser thought it worth his while to attempt a refutation. My post was entitled The Apologists' Abuse of A.N.Sherwin and in it I examined the way in which Christian apologists have misquoted and misrepresented a late Oxford professor of Roman history who made some brief and very general comments about the historicity of the New Testament. Sherwin-White thought it likely that at the time the Gospels and Acts were written, the oral tradition concerning Jesus would not have been completely mythologized. Comparing the New Testament to the kind of sources that he dealt with when studying ancient Rome, he said "however strong the myth-forming tendency, the falsification does not automatically and absolutely prevail." Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament p. 191.

This does not seem like a terribly profound observation. Many New Testament scholars who are routinely vilified as liberals or skeptics, like Bart Ehrman, think that historians can make use of the New Testament in order to draw some historically reliable conclusions about things Jesus was likely to have said or done. I find myself more in sympathy with the scholars who think that the historical Jesus is unrecoverable for all practical purposes, but that is minority position even among liberal scholars. Given Sherwin-White's admission that gospels and Acts may contain "a deal of distortion," it may seem odd that he has been embraced as a champion by conservative Christian apologists like William Lane Craig and Lee Strobel, but that is indeed the case.

What so delights the likes of Craig and Strobel is some comments that Sherwin-White made about the rate at which legends accumulated in the ancient world. "Herodotus enables us to test the tempo of myth-making and the tests suggest that even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core of the oral tradition." RLSNT p. 195. These comments have frequently been cited as proof that the Gospels should be accepted as historically accurate accounts. For Strobel, Sherwin-White was the clincher in his unbiased quest to determine whether the gospels were the product of legend.

I had wanted to believe that the deification of Jesus was the result of legendary development in which well-meaning but misguided people slowly turned a wise sage into the mythological Son of God. That seemed safe and reassuring. After all, a roving apocalyptic preacher from the first century could make no demands on me. But while I went into my investigation thinking that this legendary explanation was intuitively obvious, I emerged convinced that it was totally without basis.

What clinched it for me was the famous study by A. N. Sherwin-White, the great classical historian from Oxford University, which William Lane alluded to. Sherwin-White meticulously examined the rate at which legend accrued in the ancient world. His conclusion: not even two full generations was enough time for legend to develop and to wipe out a solid core of historical truth,

Now consider the case of Jesus. Historically speaking, the news of his empty tomb, the eyewitness accounts of his post-Resurrection appearances and the conviction that he was indeed God's unique Son emerged virtually instantaneously.

The Case for Christ p. 264.

Since Sherwin-White said only that "the falsification does not automatically and absolutely prevail (emphasis added)," it would seem that the Oxford professor believed that falsification might still be partial, considerable, pervasive, or even predominant. Nothing he wrote would seem to justify Strobel's confidence that the stories of the empty tomb and the post-resurrection appearances were part of the historic core rather than falsification.

What I consider most dubious about Strobel's reliance on Sherwin-White is his claim that "Sherwin-White meticulously examined the rate at which legend accrued in the ancient world," which I assume is what Strobel is referring to as a "famous study." In fact, Sherwin-White's meticulous examination consists of a single anecdote that doesn't seem particularly relevant to the question of whether the story of the empty tomb and the appearance accounts might be legends or myths.

Herodotus enables us to test the tempo of myth-making and the tests suggest that even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core of the oral tradition. A revealing example is provided by the story of the murder of the Athenian tyrant Hipparchus at the hands of Harmodius and Aristogeiton who became the pattern of all tyrannicides. The true story was that they assassinated Hipparchus in 514 B.C., but the tyranny lasted another four years before the establishment of the Athenian democracy. Popular opinion created a myth to the effect that Harmodius and Aristogeiton destroyed the tyranny and freed Athens. This was current in the mid-fifth century. Yet Herodotus, writing at that time, and generally taking the popular view of the establishment of democracy, gives the true version and not the myth about the death of Hipparchus. A generation later the more critical Thucydides was able to uncover a detailed account of exactly what happened on the fatal day in 514 B.C. It would have been natural and easy for Herodotus to give the mythical version. He does not do so because he had a particular interest in a greater figure that Harmodius or Aristogeiton, that is, Cleisthenes, the central person in the establishment of the democracy.

All this suggests that, however strong the myth-forming tendency, the falsification does not automatically and absolutely prevail even with a writer like Herodotus, who was naturally predisposed in favour of certain political myths, and whose ethical and literary interests were stronger than his critical faculty. The Thucydidean version is a salutary warning that even a century after a major event it is possible in a relatively small or closed community for a determined inquirer to establish a remarkably detailed account of a major event, by inquiry within the inner circle of the descendants of those concerned with the event itself . Not that one imagines that the authors of the Gospels set to work precisely like either Herodotus or Thucydides. But it can be maintained that those who had a passionate interest in the story of Christ, even if their interest in events was parabolic and didactic rather than historical, would not be led by that very fact to pervert and utterly destroy the historical kernel of their material. It can also be suggested that it would be no harder for the disciples and their immediate successors to uncover detailed narratives of the actions and sayings of Christ with their closed community, than it was for Herodotus and Thucydides to establish the story of the great events of 520-480 B.C. For this purpose it matters little whether you accept the attribution of the Gospels to eyewitnesses or not.

RLSNT p. 195-96.

If I understand this anecdote correctly, in the mid-fifth century B.C., some Athenians gave Harmodius and Aristogeiton primary credit for the establishment of democracy because they had assassinated the tyrant Hipparchus in 514 B.C. In fact, Hipparchus was not the tyrant. His older brother Hippias was, and the tyranny continued for four more years after the death of Hipparchus until Hippias was overthrown by the Spartan king Cleomenes and the Cleisthenes of Athens. Cleisthenes was instrumental in the establishment of democracy. Herodotus and Thucydides managed to get the story right. According to Thucydides, Harmodius and Aristogiton had originally intended to kill Hippias, but changed targets because they believed he had been warned.

Interestingly, Sherwin-White doesn't say how long it took for the myth to arise, and as far as I can tell, neither Herodotus nor Thucydides specifically addresses how or when the story about Hipparchus being the last tyrant arose. Cleisthenes seems to have contributed to the legend himself by commissioning a statue honoring Harmodius and Aristogeiton as liberators. It is thought that Cleisthenes wanted the overthrow of tyranny to be seen as the work of the Athenian people rather than a product of Sparta's foreign intervention. Regardless of how the legend arose, it is hard to see how one example of an inaccurate story in ancient Athens sheds any light on whether or not the story of the empty tomb is a myth.

In my earlier posts I avoided any criticism of Sherwin-White himself, but I must confess that I am puzzled by the conclusions that he draws from that single incident. He says that "those who had a passionate interest in the story of Christ, even if their interest in events was parabolic and didactic rather than historical, would not be led by that very fact to pervert and utterly destroy the historical kernel of their material." However, in the case of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, it seems that there may have been a deliberate attempt to rewrite the facts by some individuals for propaganda purposes. The true story was available to Herodotus and Thucydides because somebody else had their own reasons for seeing Cleisthenes get the credit he deserved or for undermining the legends about Harmodius and Aristotigen. It was not that the historical core somehow resisted the mythologizing tendency as the story was passed down in the oral tradition. It was that different stories were preserved in different lines of transmission by people with differing interests.

According to Sherwin-White, "it would be no harder for the disciples and their immediate successors to uncover detailed narratives of the actions and sayings of Christ within their closed community," but that really doesn't seem to take the differences in the two situations seriously. The overthrow of tyranny and the establishment of democracy in Athens was an event which drew the attention of many groups with divergent interests. Each group would be motivated, politically or otherwise, to preserve their particular version of the events. That is why the true story was available. Who would have preserved an oral tradition about Jesus that omitted the legendary and mythological elements? There is no reason to think that anyone other than those who proclaimed him the supernatural Son of God preserved any version of Jesus' life and teachings. If the inner circle of the closed community was composed of the myth-formers, where was the determined inquirer going to go to get the true story?

In any case, regardless of what one thinks of Sherwin-White's analysis of legendary accumulation in the ancient world, I don't see anything in it that begins to justify Lee Strobel's claim that the legendary explanation for the deification of Jesus is totally without basis. Even Sherwin-White admitted that "a deal of distortion can affect a story that is given literary form a generation or two after the events." John Frazer believes that I have abused poor Lee Strobel along with William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Josh McDowell, Norm Geisler and all the other apologists who have taken Sherwin-White out of context, but I was happy with my post when I wrote it three years ago, and I'm even happier to know that it still generates interest.

You said, "Interestingly, Sherwin-White doesn't say how long it took for the myth to arise, and as far as I can tell, neither Herodotus nor Thucydides specifically addresses how or when the story about Hipparchus being the last tyrant arose."

I've noticed that a lot of your arguments are arguments from silence - "Sherwin-White doesn't say X" - when in fact nobody has said that Sherwin-White said X. I've pointed out a number of times when you did that on your previous post, and you've done it again several times here. This is a logical fallacy. However, in this case it's particularly irrelevant because while Sherwin-White may not say how long it took the myth to arise, he does say that even two generations is not enough to wipe out the historic core. Since this is exactly what the apologists are also saying, they are not abusing Sherwin-White to say so.

You said, "Nothing he wrote would seem to justify Strobel's confidence that the stories of the empty tomb and the post-resurrection appearances were part of the historic core rather than falsification."

Again, Strobel doesn't say "Sherwin-White said that the empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances were part of the historic core," so you've once again gone straw man building here. There are other good reasons to believe that these things ARE part of the historic core. Sherwin-White's comments support the argument (and strongly refute the skeptical approach to the NT), but they don't form the basis of it.

You said, “If I understand this anecdote correctly, in the mid-fifth century B.C., some Athenians gave Harmodius and Aristogeiton primary credit for the establishment of democracy because they had assassinated the tyrant Hipparchus in 514 B.C. . . . Herodotus and Thucydides managed to get the story right.”

You’ve missed two of Sherwin-White’s key points with this story. One is that Herodotus was “naturally predisposed in favor of certain myths,” so we might have expected him to go with the popular myth, yet he still gets the story right – and he gets it right precisely because of his interest in the person of Cleisthenes. The point about Thucydides is that a century later he was still able to dig up a more detailed account of exactly what happened.

You said, "In my earlier posts I avoided any criticism of Sherwin-White himself, but I must confess that I am puzzled by the conclusions that he draws from that single incident."

This is your problem, Vince. Your complaints are not with the apologists, since there is nothing wrong with how they use Sherwin-White. Your complaints are with Sherwin-White. The problem for you is that Sherwin-White was a highly respected and thorough scholar of Roman history. He knew what he was talking about.

You said, "There is no reason to think that anyone other than those who proclaimed him the supernatural Son of God preserved any version of Jesus' life and teachings."

Not only is there no basis for this statement, it's also demonstrably false. There are other versions of Jesus' life and teachings which did not make it into the New Testament from people who saw Jesus differently. Not only that, but we have recorded teachings and records of people who nobody thought was the divine Son of God! So this comment has no basis.

I’ve come to the conclusion that the reason your post generates interest among other skeptics is because it’s one of the first links to come up on a Google search of “A. N. Sherwin-White.” Careless skeptics see it, skim it, decide you know what you’re talking about (of course without having read Sherwin-White themselves), and then post it on some internet forum. I’ve seen 2 or 3 do that, although when I challenged them to defend your argument they quickly dropped the subject.

I am not making an argument from silence. When I have said that “Sherwin-White doesn’t say X,” I have not made the claim that “therefore, Sherwin-White doesn’t know about X” or “therefore, X never happened.” Those would be arguments from silence. I point out the fact that no one says how quickly the Hipparchus myth arose because I think it would be useful to compare how quickly that myth arose to how quickly the stories of the empty tomb and the post-resurrection appearances arose in order to judge the applicability of Sherwin-White’s example to Strobel’s conclusion.

I never said that Strobel said "Sherwin-White said that the empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances were part of the historic core." (How ironic that you point out something someone didn’t say after criticizing me for doing so.) Strobel said that Sherwin-White “clinched” his rejection of the legendary explanation for the deification of Jesus and he cited the rapidity with which the stories of the empty tomb and the post-resurrection appearances arose. I therefore infer that Strobel deems these to be part of the historic core of the gospel stories rather than part of the falsification. Since Sherwin-White’s analysis of the rate of legendary accumulation “clinched” the issue for Strobel, I would expect to find something therein which justifies the claim that the stories Strobel cites are part of the historic core rather than legendary accumulation.

Your repeated claim that Sherwin-White refutes the skeptical approach to the New Testament is insufficiently determined. Many scholars who are routinely labeled skeptics share Sherwin-White’s conviction that historically reliable information can be derived from the gospels and Acts. They do not, however, share the conviction of apologists like Strobel that every story in the Bible, including those describing supernatural events, can be taken as historically reliable.

Dagoods posed the following question in a comment on my earlier post: “What do you think Sherwin-White is saying is the ‘hard historical core of the oral tradition’ still found in the Gospels and Acts?”

This brings to mind another question: What parts of Gospels and Acts do you think Strobel would classify as falsification?

I think you are making arguments from silence at least implicitly. What’s interesting to me about this latest comment of yours is that you want to compare the Gospels with the Hipparchus myth (which Herodotus and Thucydides did NOT endorse), while Sherwin-White compares them to Herodotus and Thucydides themselves. That’s a good indicator of how different your approach is from his.

The central issue here is whether the apologists are properly following the ideas of Sherwin-White, or whether it’s skeptical scholars like Ehrman (a suggestion which I’ve heard nowhere else). Sherwin-White would not be sympathetic to Ehrman’s approach because Ehrman bases much of his criticism on the “Chinese whispers” scenario (when he isn’t basing it on direct suspicion of church authorities, another favorite tactic of his). Part of what Sherwin-White is saying is that first of all there wasn’t enough time for those myths to develop in such a way as to make the historical facts unattainable. But there’s more to it than that. The “Chinese whispers” scenario is pretty explicitly repudiated by Sherwin-White when he writes, “But it can be maintained that those who had a passionate interest in the story of Christ, even if their interest in events was parabolical and didactic rather than historical, would not be led by that very fact to pervert and utterly destroy the historical kernel of their material. It can also be suggested that it would be no harder for the Disciples and their immediate successors to uncover detailed narratives of the actions and sayings of Christ within their closed community, than it was for Herodotus and Thucydides to establish the story of the great events of 520-480 B.C. For this purpose it matters little whether you accept the attribution of the Gospels to eyewitnesses or not.”

Skeptics have spent a lot of ink trying to discredit the traditional ascriptions of authorship (quite unsuccessfully in my mind), but Sherwin-White says it’s not that important. But he doesn’t mean to say that it’s not that important because it’s obviously just all myth (the skeptical approach), rather he’s saying it’s not that important because the very contents of these books show them to be based on accurate and contemporary historical data (as he repeatedly demonstrates in detail in the first several chapters of his book). This is no “Chinese whispers” scenario. Rather, it’s a statement that form-criticism doesn’t undermine the historical integrity of these documents. There is nothing in Sherwin-White here which indicates any sympathy at all for the likes of Ehrman or the far more outrageous criticisms of scholars like Crossan or Funk.

I believe he would have been more sympathetic to scholars like William Ramsay. I don’t know if he was familiar with Ramsay’s work or not, but Ramsay showed how the critical views were repeatedly mistaken on Acts. Ramsay didn’t really attempt to give a verdict on the miracles, either, although he was more explicit about openness to them. But he did give a verdict on the historical setting, and it was the same as Sherwin-White’s. Many other scholars have followed in those same footsteps. I’m not talking about popular apologists like Strobel and Craig, I’m thinking more of scholars like Ben Witherington, Richard Bauckham, F.F. Bruce, James Dunn, Ward Gasque, N.T. Wright, and many others.

The reason Sherwin-White didn’t draw specific conclusions is that he was writing as an outsider to NT studies. He was setting forth principles based on Roman studies and showing why the principles the skeptics applied to the NT were not valid – in fact, in many cases outrageously off base. The application of those principles must be left to others.

As for what Strobel would think, I don’t know. Craig seems open to the possibility of errors in some of the details as are other people who nevertheless accept the Resurrection as historical – I’m thinking of Frank Morison and James Dunn as I say that. There are doubtless other examples as well.

'I don’t know if he was familiar with Ramsay’s work or not, but Ramsay showed how the critical views were repeatedly mistaken on Acts. '

So no attempt to defend the Gospels then....

Acts seems to get historical just when Jesus turns into a voice in the sky, and virtually all the Gospel characters have vanished from history like the Angel Moroni vanished from history.

Just like Mormon histories get really accurate when they talk about moving to Utah....

Meanwhile,not one person in history ever wrote a document saying he had personally seen an empty tomb.

All we have are letters written to early Christians scoffing at the idea of their god choosing to raise corpses.

Until 'Mark' invented stories of Jesus talking to Satan, seeing Moses return from the dead, sending demons into pigs and all that other good stuff that Fraser claims Sherwin-White regarded as just as good as real history.

Why can't Christians produce a even a possessed pig?

I've given up on them producing somebody who claimed to have seen these imaginary women at the tomb, or an empty tomb,or Judas, or Bartimaeus.

But surely Christians must at least have a possessed pig up their sleeve as evidence that their belief systems are more evidenced than stories of Zeus.

I am not comparing the Hipparchus myth with the gospels themselves. I am comparing the Hipparchus myth with the story of the empty tomb and the stories of the appearances.

If you don’t think Sherwin-White would approve of Ehrman’s methodology, how do you think he would go about separating the historical kernel in the gospels from the falsification? What do you think Sherwin-White would view as falsification?

BTW, I had always thought that the orthodox position on the apocryphal gospels is that they were 2nd century (and later) fabrications that used the canonical writings as a source. Is it your position that they preserve stories from the time of Jesus from a line of transmission that was independent of the oral tradition behind the canonical writings?

Well, if it isn’t the ubiquitous Steven Carr. Only happy when he’s found some Christian apologists to abuse.

Steven said, “Acts seems to get historical just when Jesus turns into a voice in the sky, and virtually all the Gospel characters have vanished from history like the Angel Moroni vanished from history.”

Oh, I don’t think so, Steven. For one thing there are quite a few of the “Gospel characters” in Acts. You may have heard of Peter. Or James and John, or James the brother of Jesus. Wait – I can hear another of Steven’s arguments from silence coming on any moment now . . .

Sherwin-White answers the situation between the historical confirmation of Acts versus the Gospels himself: “That the degree of confirmation in Graeco-Roman terms is less for the Gospels than for Acts is due, as these lectures have tried to show, to the differences in their regional setting. As soon as Christ enters the Roman orbit at Jerusalem, the confirmation begins” (p. 189).

Be a good boy, Steven, and let's not ruin a good thread with your rambling silliness.

You said, “I am not comparing the Hipparchus myth with the gospels themselves. I am comparing the Hipparchus myth with the story of the empty tomb and the stories of the appearances.”

So you aren’t comparing the Hipparchus myth with the gospels – just some of the stories IN the Gospels! That doesn’t change the point – Sherwin-White compares the Gospels (which includes the stories in them) with the works of Herodotus and Thucydides. He gives no comfort to the skeptic who wants the stories of the empty tomb and the appearances to be pure myth.

You said, “If you don’t think Sherwin-White would approve of Ehrman’s methodology, how do you think he would go about separating the historical kernel in the gospels from the falsification? What do you think Sherwin-White would view as falsification?”

I don’t understand your use of the term “falsification.” You mean which stories would he think are false? I think I already answered this question. I think he would be sympathetic to the approach exemplified by scholars like William Ramsay, along with the others I mentioned. He might contend there are some details that are erroneous as do some others who nevertheless hold to the basic historicity of the Gospels and accept the Resurrection as historical. I’m not saying that Sherwin-White would accept the Resurrection; that would be putting words in his mouth. I don’t know if he did or not. But his approach leads in the direction that the reports are authentic. I see no hope for any skeptical explanation of that, but that’s a different matter.

You said, “BTW, I had always thought that the orthodox position on the apocryphal gospels is that they were 2nd century (and later) fabrications that used the canonical writings as a source.”

It’s certainly possible that they used the canonical writings as a source, but there were other written sources as well according to Luke.

You said, “Is it your position that they preserve stories from the time of Jesus from a line of transmission that was independent of the oral tradition behind the canonical writings?”

I’m not trying to take a position – I haven’t studied source criticism of the apocryphal gospels enough to have a position. I was simply challenging your comment that the only people who would have had an interest in preserving the words and deeds of Jesus would have been those who thought he was the divine Son of God. I see no support for that sentiment, and some of the other gospels portray him much differently. So clearly they weren’t just relying on the canonical Gospels, and clearly they had a motive to preserve the sayings and/or deeds of Jesus besides orthodox Christian belief. That’s really all I was saying.

I am using “falsification” to refer to those distortions that are produced by the myth-forming tendency.

Sherwin-White wrote that “however strong the myth-forming tendency, the falsification does not automatically and absolutely prevail.” That allows for the possibility that falsification partially prevails or that it is pervasive within the source. He also wrote “Certainly a deal of distortion can affect a story that is given literary form a generation or two after the event, whether for national glorification or political spite, or of the didactic or symbolic exposition of ideas. But in the material of ancient history, the historical content is not hopelessly lost.” What method do you think he would use to separate the distortions from the historical content in the gospels? What methods do you use to separate them?

FRASEROr James and John, or James the brother of Jesus. Wait – I can hear another of Steven’s arguments from silence coming on any moment now . .

CARRFraser is spot on. I will mention the silence, just like Fraser would mention the silence about the Angel Moroni when talking to Mormons.

Just where does Luke/Acts mention that Jesus had a brother called James?

Luke/Acts, is , of course, silent about Jesus having a brother called James.

But Fraser thinks the mere fact that his source is silent does not stop him proclaiming that Acts mentions James the brother of Jesus.

This is called 'apologetics' - just keep repeating things no matter how often they have been refuted.

If sceptics have pointed out a million times that there is no brother of Jesus called James in Luke/Acts, then simply claim that there is one more time. After all, the marks will believe you, not the sceptics.

Meanwhile, Fraser is unable to produce a single person who ever wrote a document saying he, Mr. X, had seen Judas, Thomas, Lazarus, these imaginary women at the tomb, Joseph of Arimathea.

But just like Mormons who claim the Angel Moroni existed, the mere fact that these people are no more attested than the Satan who Jesus spoke to in the desert does not stop Fraser claiming they are corroborated.

And if Luke/Acts never once hints that Jesus had a brother called James, Fraser simply ignores facts and says it does, and demands that sceptics stop the 'sillinesss' of saying no such brother of Jesus exists in Luke/Acts.

No wonder apologists end up in such a mind set that they actually take seriously claims that Jesus took off into the sky on his way to Heaven.

Because they read it in an Old Book.

Fraser can no more produce an empty tomb than Paul could produce an empty tomb to satisfy the Christian converts in Corinth who scoffed at the very idea of their god choosing to raise corpses.

I don't have space here to go into a detailed analysis of how to establish the specific elements of the historic core. Those arguments have been developed in detail by the scholars I've mentioned. My purpose here is to address A.N. Sherwin-White and your allegations that apologists are using him inappropriately, when in fact they are simply using exactly what he said as part of a larger argument. As I have repeatedly pointed out, Sherwin-White gives no comfort at all to the skeptical position, and in fact everything he says tells against it. Your problem is really with Sherwin-White, not with the apologists. I don't have anything else to add to that.

Steven calls it a "discrepancy" that Mark says Jesus had a brother named James while Luke failed to mention that. This is an interesting definition of the word "discrepancy," which means disagreement or variance. Arguments from silence are not disagreements. It would be a disagreement if Luke said that Jesus DIDN'T have a brother named James, or if Luke gave an exhaustive list of Jesus' brothers and there was no James on the list.

However, we don't need to worry about that because Paul also said that James was the brother of Jesus (James the Lord's brother) in Gal. 1:19. He obviously meant brother in the biological sense, because all of the other apostles were also the Lord's brother in the spiritual sense! It's also clear that Paul is referring to the James who was the leader of the church in Jerusalem, about whom Luke is writing in Acts 21:18 where Luke is invoved in a meeting with James.

Besides the obvious problem with arguments from silence being a logical fallacy, they are also often quite easy to refute. But skeptics never seem to tire of them.

1) There MUST be a hard historical core of oral tradition after two generations; or2) There CAN be a hard historical core of oral tradition after two generations?"

Have you read the book? I think it's easy enough to see what Sherwin-White says, his language is not cryptic. He says two generations is too short to wipe out the historical core. He also said (in a quote I already gave above) that those who were passionately interested in the story of Christ would not be led by that fact to pervert and destroy the historical core - yet this is exactly what the skeptics insist happened.

So he simply says that after two generations (and actually longer given his illustration of Thucydides), there will be a historical core. He neither says "must," nor does he say "can," he simply says there will be. I'm not sure what's hard about that. Are you questioning whether Sherwin-White was correct, or are you questioning whether the apologists have used him correctly? If it's the latter, I suggest reading the book yourself and see how Sherwin-White's entire argument from start to finish is to argue against the skeptical position. I haven't even touched on the earlier chapters where he repeatedly gives examples where the skeptics were wrong, both in general terms of late-dating and also in specific details.

The most the skeptic can say is that Sherwin-White didn't render judgment specifically on the miraculous elements. But no apologist that I have seen says that he did. But in every other way Sherwin-White argues against the skeptical position. If you are familiar with skeptical scholarship in this area and see what Sherwin-White is saying, you'll see that he is taking the skeptics to task repeatedly. It's hard for me to fathom anyone interpreting him as supporting a skeptical position.

No, I have not read the book. As you have, I was attempting to determine what Sherwin-White’s position was. I was curious whether he was establishing a hard and fast rule of “two generations is not enough.”

I remain uncertain how much this helps us, without any determination as to what constitutes “hard historical core.” Unless Sherwin-White addresses the empty tomb, post-Resurrection appearances and Jesus as God’s unique son being part of such a “hard historical core”?

I also own the book and have had a brief discussion with Vinny about it on my blog. I agree with John that Sherwin-White is taking the skeptical scholars to task for dismissing major parts of the Gospels as myth. That is his thesis, and some of the quotes that Vinny has used in support of his argument that apologists are "abusing" Sherwin-White, are qualifications. That is, Sherwin-White is choosing his words carefully in order to not overstate his case. (I do agree with Vinny that Craig incorrectly put the word "incredible" in quotes, but other than that, he correctly summarizes Sherwin-White's position.)

I remain uncertain how much this helps us, without any determination as to what constitutes “hard historical core.” Unless Sherwin-White addresses the empty tomb, post-Resurrection appearances and Jesus as God’s unique son being part of such a “hard historical core”?

This sentence may answer your question: "Yet however one accepts form-criticism, its principles do not inevitably contradict the notion of the basic historicity of the particular stories of which the Gospel narratives are composed . . ." (Italics added.) So he appears to be talking about the historical core of the specific stories. Since the empty tomb is a major story, told in all four Gospels, it would almost certainly qualify.

As for the postmortem appearances, scholars (even skeptical ones) almost universally hold that the disciples and Paul at least believed they saw Jesus, so we don't need Sherwin-White's perspective. He limits his discussion to the Gospels and Acts, and skeptical scholars make this concession based on 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, which contains firsthand testimony by Paul of Jesus appearing to him. Also, according to most scholars (including Gerd Ludemann and Robert Funk) he is citing tradition dating to within five years of the death of Jesus.

But going back to Sherwin-White, if he accepted the supernatural aspects of the Gospel and the deity of Jesus, he would be a conservative Christian, and therefore not an independent source. Instead, he is conceding historical facts that, combined with other facts (like the words of Paul in 1 Cor. 15:3-8), make a strong case for the resurrection, because of the absence of compelling naturalistic explanations for the data. That is, he is an expert (historian of ancient Rome) who is arguing in favor of the historicity of the stories in the Gospels, because, as he says: "For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming." And Acts is "no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions."

Vinny has argued that apologists have dishonestly replaced that sentence fragment with ellipses, but it does not undermine their case because Sherwin-White is not here making the argument that Acts contains distortions. He is addressing the objection that the Gospel authors were biased and not trying to write history (p. 188), by saying that Acts is the same type of literature, but even so the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. And because of the regional setting of the Gospels, we cannot directly confirm their historicity like we can with the book of Acts.

This does not mean he believed in the resurrection, nor does it mean that he considered the Gospels to be free of discrepancies and distortions. But it does mean that he would most likely have rejected the argument that the story of the empty tomb is myth. It is an extremely central story, and according to Sherwin-White, the Gospels were written down too soon for the historical core to be replaced by myth.

The first statement is far from complimentary, but it can be seen as affirming a somewhat positive aspect of my wife’s culinary productions. The second statement, on the other hand, is a warning to avoid her cooking. It’s possible that it won’t make you sick, but it wouldn’t be a good idea to take the chance if you can avoid it.

Sherwin-White’s statements about the historicity of the New Testament are like the second statement. “Its principles do not inevitably contradict the notion of the basic historicity of the particular stories of which the Gospel narratives are composed.” “The falsification does not automatically and absolutely prevail.” “They would not be led by that very fact to pervert and utterly destroy the historical kernel of their material.” They do not admit more than the possibility that a historical core within the gospel materials can be found. They do not affirm the historicity of any specific story.

The problem is that you are taking Sherwin-White out of context. I can't think of a single context that would salvage either of those statements about your wife's cooking, so I don't think that analogy fits here. However, both the immediate context of your quotes and the broader context of Sherwin-White's thesis contradict your interpretation of what he is saying.

You said: “The falsification does not automatically and absolutely prevail.” The full quote is: "All this suggests that, however strong the myth-forming tendency, the falsification does not automatically and absolutely prevail even with a writer like Herodotus . . ." Sherwin-White is not even talking about the Gospel authors here. He is using the example of someone who is "naturally predisposed in favour of certain political myths, and whose ethical and literary interests were stronger than his critical faculties."

And the context of your second quote is that even a century after a major event, it is possible for a "determined inquirer to establish a remarkably detailed account of the major event, by inquiry within the inner circle of the descendants of those concerned with the event itself. Not that one imagines that the authors of the Gospels set to work precisely like either Herodotus or Thucydides. But it can be maintained that those who had a passionate interest in the story of Christ, even if their interest in events was parabolic and didactic rather than historical, would not be led by that very fact to pervert and utterly destroy the historical kernel of their material."

He then goes on to summarize his conclusion about the historicity of the trial of Jesus (the only part of the Gospels that he can authoritatively defend as historical, since it takes place in "the Roman orbit at Jerusalem"), by saying that, "The impression of a historical tradition is nowhere more strongly felt than in the various accounts of the trial of Christ, analysed in Roman terms in the second lecture."

He then says that the Gospel authors were essentially primitive historians, and draws a "remarkable parallel" between their technique and that of "Herodotus, the father of history, in their anecdotal conception of a narrative."

As for my quote to DagoodS, the context there is "however one accepts form-criticism, its principles do not inevitably contradict . . ." meaning that even if those who employ form-criticism start out with the assumption that the Gospels are propaganda and therefore liable to distortion, that does not inevitably contradict the basic historicity of the stories. This takes him to his discussion of Herodotus and the tempo of myth-making, and he says that Herodotus was predisposed in favor of certain political myths in his telling of history.

However, Sherwin-White has given no indication that he has identified either contradictions or distortions in the Gospels. He refers to "the mildly divergent versions of the scene before Pilate and the Sanhedrin." He never says that the Gospels contain contradictions, even though he uses the word when talking about the Tiberius material and the versions of the Gaius Gracchus tribunate. And he says that the confirmation of historicity in Acts is overwhelming, and that "as soon as Christ enters the Roman orbit at Jerusalem, the confirmation begins."

Thank you, Vinny, John Fraser and Anette Acker for the discussion. It was illuminating. As I have not read the book, any opinion I have is necessarily qualified.

But it does appear the apologists—at the least—overstate the case Sherwin-White is making. Dr. Craig’s use of “unbelievable” is incorrect; Dr. Habermas’ mis-quoting (assuming his source did not contain a typographical error) is equally incorrect. Strobel’s intermixing of hyperbole and exaggerated terms (“meticulously examined,” “full generations” [emphasis added], “deification of Jesus,” “emerged virtually instantaneously”) is regrettably habitual. (It is not precisely clear what Strobel relies upon as the “historical core” he claims Sherwin-White believes was not “wiped out.”)

For example, (and I don’t mean to pick on you, Anette Acker, but it works well for this)—the empty tomb. Apparently Sherwin-White did not address the empty tomb at all, so we are left applying his general principle “even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core of the oral tradition.“

Our first question would be, when did the “oral tradition” of the empty tomb begin? Strobel says “virtually instantaneously,” but this is speculative argument based upon the writings we have. Paul, in 50 CE doesn’t mention an empty tomb. It isn’t until Mark (65 CE), we have the story recorded. I am aware of the arguments for a pre-Markan Passion story…not persuasive to me.

Thus this “oral tradition” could start anywhere from 30 CE to 65 CE. We don’t know. Indeed, Mark could have easily made it up himself! There are additional problems within the story (Joseph of Arimathea, guards, seals, women, Angels, statements) demonstrating myth.

Further, the fact subsequent Gospels contain the story is outside Sherwin-White’s principle—they aren’t based on “oral tradition”! Matthew used Mark, Luke used Matthew and Mark, and John was influenced by at least Luke (if not written, by oral transmission of Luke’s written material.)

I am unclear how one could extrapolate Sherwin-White’s claim to bolster an argument the empty tomb is a “hard historic core of the oral tradition.”

Sherwin-White doesn’t actually say that “the Gospel authors were essentially primitive historians.” What he says is “Taking the synoptic writers quite generally as primitive historians, there is a remarkable parallel between their technique and that of Herodotus, the father of history, in their anecdotal conception of a narrative.” The problem that you and the apologists have is that you insist upon removing the qualifications from Sherwin-White’s statements in order to make it seem as though they affirm much more than they actually do.

If someone writes that something does not happen automatically, it indicates that it can happen sometimes. If I someone writes that something doesn’t happen inevitably, it indicates that that it can happen sometimes, perhaps even frequently. If someone writes that something does not happen utterly, it indicates that it can happen partially, perhaps even substantially. If someone writes that something is not hopelessly lost, it indicates that it could still be very hard to find.

I don’t think that anything you have cited as context changes my basic point that Sherwin-White hedged and qualified his statements about the prospects for recovering the historical core of the gospels. He thinks that it should be possible to do so, but he doesn’t say what he thinks would fall within the historical core and what he thinks would fall with in legendary embellishment. Moreover, by his qualified statements expressly allow for the possibility that substantial portions of the gospels could be legendary embellishment.

You and Strobel and Craig are free to believe that the story of the empty tomb falls within the historical core of the New Testament, but to claim Sherwin-White as support for that conclusion is just wishful thinking.

For example, (and I don’t mean to pick on you, Anette Acker, but it works well for this)—the empty tomb. Apparently Sherwin-White did not address the empty tomb at all, so we are left applying his general principle “even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core of the oral tradition.“

You're right that Sherwin-White did not address the empty tomb, but we are left with much more than just that quote. As I said before, he has evaluated the historicity of the trial of Jesus and the book of Acts in great detail without finding mistakes or contradictions. And he unequivocally affirms the historicity of those parts.

Since he can't directly confirm most parts of the Gospels, he is left to extrapolate from the parts of the New Testament that are clearly historical. And when he does that, he is cautious because that is outside of his area of specialty. However, he says that even if we assume that the Gospels are propaganda that is likely to be biased (the assumption of some types of form-criticism), that does not "inevitably contradict the notion of the basic historicity of the particular stories of which the Gospel narratives are composed." But nowhere does he indicate that he thinks it's propaganda, and that the authors had no intention of recording facts accurately. Indeed, he would be in no position to say so, since the trial of Jesus and the book of Acts are accurate so he has no evidence of distortion.

You asked the question of whether he would accept the empty tomb, and I replied that he probably would, since he talks about the historical core of the "particular stories." Also, the majority of scholars, including secular historian Michael Grant and Jewish scholar Geza Vermes (neither of whom accept the historicity of the Gospels to the degree that Sherwin-White seems to, based on what he said about the trial and the book of Acts) believe the tomb was found empty. Bart Ehrman, who is considered an opposition scholars, said in From Jesus to Constantine that "it appears to be a historical datum" that women found the tomb empty. Vinny has argued that this is not Ehrman's true position, but that is in fact what he said in 2003. I'm not aware of him saying anything to the contrary in print since then.

Sherwin-White is not among the many scholars who have specifically said that they accept the historicity of the empty tomb. However, he has affirmed the historical reliability of the Gospels and Acts to the extent that it is possible to do so, and he takes issue with the "basic assumptions of form criticism of the extremer sort" that "didactic myths" form much faster than they actually do.

I don’t think that anything you have cited as context changes my basic point that Sherwin-White hedged and qualified his statements about the prospects for recovering the historical core of the gospels. He thinks that it should be possible to do so, but he doesn’t say what he thinks would fall within the historical core and what he thinks would fall with in legendary embellishment. Moreover, by his qualified statements expressly allow for the possibility that substantial portions of the gospels could be legendary embellishment.

You took the words of Sherwin-White out of context and said that they were statements about the New Testament, which they were not. And on another occasion, you made it seems as if he considered the Gospels to a propaganda narrative that contains a great deal of distortion. And he does not say that. In fact, he indicates that everything is historically accurate to the extent that he can verify it, and he refers to the accounts of the trial of Jesus as "mildly divergent," but he doesn't say they contradict each other, which is what he says of the Tiberius material and the Gracchus material.

I'm not saying you are intentionally trying to mislead. I don't think you are. However, I would suggest that you go back and read it again in context, because he is not saying that he has discovered either contradictions or distortions in the trial of Jesus and Acts. He is simply addressing the objections of the skeptic, and saying that even if we assume bias, this does not mean that the historical core of the stories would be lost.

You and Strobel and Craig are free to believe that the story of the empty tomb falls within the historical core of the New Testament, but to claim Sherwin-White as support for that conclusion is just wishful thinking.

Sherwin-White is used in support of the general reliability of the Gospels and Acts, not the empty tomb specifically. However, the empty tomb is a major event in the Gospel, and most scholars accept its historicity.

Sherwin-White believes that propaganda narratives can contain historical information. "For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortion." If Sherwin-White did not believe that the Gospels and Acts weren't propaganda narratives, why would he ever have written such a sentence?

The word "propaganda" has negative connotations as material that is biased, although propaganda is not by definition a distortion of the truth. It just means to spread information in support of a cause or doctrine.

But you must have interpreted Sherwin-White to mean it in the negative sense, since you've said that Christians have dishonestly replaced the part you've bolded with ellipses. It is honest to use ellipses in place of something that is irrelevant to our argument, but dishonest to use them in place of something that undermines our argument.

So since you think Christians dishonestly omitted that part, you must think that it's damaging to our position. That is, you seem to interpret that phrase to mean that Sherwin-White thinks the book of Acts (and by extension, the Gospels) is biased propaganda that is a distortion of the truth. If you didn't mean that, then you wouldn't object to the omission of that sentence.

However, if you read Sherwin-White in context, you'll see that he is not saying that. His argument starts on the bottom of p. 188, where he says: "The objection will be raised to this line of argument that the Roman historical writers and the Gospels belong to different kinds of literature. Whatever the defects of our sources, their authors were trying to write history." So he is responding to that objection by first of all saying that Acts is no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions, and yet the "confirmation of history is overwhelming." And then, secondly, he challenges "the agnostic type of form-criticism" which holds that didactic myths could have developed that fast.

Sherwin-White is very careful to distinguish between what he knows and what he does not know (that's why he qualifies everything to death--which makes him hard to read). He does not rule out distortion in the New Testament, but as far as I can tell, he has not identified any, except "mildly divergent" perspectives on the trial. And if he has not identified historical mistakes or contradictions, then he is in no position to say that the New Testament is a biased, distorted propaganda narrative. And he doesn't say that. He admits that, by the nature of this type of narrative, that is a risk, but nevertheless, the confirmation of historicity in the book of Acts is overwhelming. (And he says that writers like Herodotus were also biased.)

And then, secondly, he challenges "the agnostic type of form-criticism" which holds that didactic myths could have developed that fast.

No. This is what you and the apologists keep getting wrong. Sherwin-White doesn’t deny that myths can develop quickly, e.g., “certainly a deal of distortion can affect a story that is given literary form a generation or two after the event.” He merely argues that a historical core could still be found during that time by a determined author just as Herodotus was able to find the historical core of the story about overthrow of the tyrant of Athens.

This point is also made in the footnote on pp. 192-93. “There was a remarkable growth of myth around [Alexander the Great’s] person and deeds within the lifetime of contemporaries, and the historical embroidery was often deliberate.” The story that Alexander was the son of Zeus as well as the story that the sea had receded in order to make way for Alexander’s army were both propagated by Alexander’s official biographer during Alexander’s lifetime. (I am currently reading Alexander the Great: The Search for a New Past by Paul Cartledge which contains extensive discussions of the Alexandrian sources.)

Every historian knows that the best of ancient sources contain both fact and fiction. Sherwin-White says that explicitly about the sources he worked with in his studies of ancient Rome. While he is more optimistic about the possibility of recovering the historical core of the gospels than the most skeptical form critics, he could not possibly deem them to be more reliable documents than the ancient Roman sources upon which his knowledge of Roman law and society (and hence his evaluation of the gospels and Acts) depended.

The problem for the apologists is that they are committed by faith to the notion that every story in the gospels and Acts is historically accurate. No real historian of the ancient world ever approaches his sources with that attitude. You are correct that Sherwin-White does not identify any specific distortions just as he does not identify any specific stories as being true, which is why he should not be cited on either side for any specific story. On the question of whether Sherwin-White thinks that the New Testament accounts contain both legend and fact just as the Roman sources do, I don't think there can be any doubt; it is the nature of ancient sources.

I've been reading this thread off and on....and all I can say is that I think that Vinny is right, and that John and Annete are so eager to vindicate the apologists that they don't pick up on the tone of Sherwin-White.

I have not actually read the book, so I will admit that my reaction is strictly to the sections that have been included in this post, comment thread, and some of John's posts on his blog....which was so voluminous that I gave up reading it about halfway through.

The way that John and Annete are reading Sherwin White is a way in which any scrap that might be used for their position, and that of the apologists they are defending, is seen as conclusive, unquestionable support for the historicity of the gospels....while simultaneously ignoring the points Sherwin White makes that may work against their agenda.

The problem isn't so much that SHerwin-WHite couldn't be used to bolster their case so much as the problem is that He can just as easily be used to undermine their case.

It is a case of overstatement and over-reaching. They have represented SHerwin-White's quotes as being stronger, more forceful, and more definitive than they seem to be as written.

You said, "You are correct that Sherwin-White does not identify any specific distortions just as he does not identify any specific stories as being true, which is why he should not be cited on either side for any specific story."

And no apologist that I have ever seen uses Sherwin-White this way! This is where you keep blowing it, Vince. You say that apologists are misusing him, but they don't use him the way you imply that they do. I would agree that apologists shouldn't use Sherwin-White to support a particular story, but they don't. Where Sherwin-White IS useful is in his trenchant criticisms of the skeptical approach to the NT, his factual observations about the historical accuracy and early dating of the Gospels and Acts, and his comments concerning the rate of mythmaking. In fact I think Sherwin-White has a lot of good material in the earlier chapters which is neglected by apologists because it's somewhat difficult to work through and summarize in an argument. It doesn't play well for popular apologetics, but it's still very valuable material.

You said, "On the question of whether Sherwin-White thinks that the New Testament accounts contain both legend and fact just as the Roman sources do, I don't think there can be any doubt; it is the nature of ancient sources."

What do you mean by "legend"? Legend is normally used of a story which has no factual basis at all, perhaps a story about an actual person which never took place. Sherwin-White has said nowhere that the nature of ancient sources is that they contain legends - that's simply you projecting your own skeptical views onto him, which you've done the whole time. You don't seem to realize that there's a difference between stories becoming distorted, and legends which are stories with no factual or historical basis whatsoever (or at least I assume that's what you mean).

Even when Sherwin-White uses the word "myth," he uses it differently than the skeptic would. For example, he uses it to refer to the popular idea that Harmodius and Aristogeiton "destroyed the tyranny and freed Athens" by murdering Hipparchus, whereas the tyranny actually lasted another 4 years before democracy was established. The "myth" (which Herodotus didn't fall for in spite of his proclivities) was that Harmodius and Aristogeiton had a bigger role in ushering in democracy than the actually did. Democracy was ushered in, and Harmodius and Aristogeiton did murder Hipparchus, but the myth had to do with the connection between those two events, not with the historicity of either of them. This is not "myth" in the skeptical sense, and there's certainly nothing in here where he talks about legends.

What you've done is taken some of his qualifying comments about distortion and propaganda and read into it all of your skeptical presuppositions, even though Sherwin-White argues against the skeptical position at every turn. It's mystifying to me what you think Sherwin-White was actually writing about. You've simply missed the forest for the trees. I would love to hear any scholar who interprets Sherwin-White as endorsing or even giving sympathy to the skeptical position.

It's quite remarkable to me that you've come to a conclusion about who is right in their interpretation of Sherwin-White when you admit you haven't even read the book yourself! Talk about honesty, how can you call that an intellectually honest conclusion? I'm astounded at the sheer chutzpah.

But I'll tell you what - go and find any scholar who interprets Sherwin-White as supporting or even giving sympathy to the skeptical position. I would love to see that. So far Vinny is the only person I have seen who says this.

Every historian knows that the best of ancient sources contain both fact and fiction. Sherwin-White says that explicitly about the sources he worked with in his studies of ancient Rome.

Yes, he says it explicitly about the secular sources he mentioned, but he doesn't say it about the New Testament. He doesn't rule it out, but he does not identify anything that is historically inaccurate--at least not in the section we're discussing. About the trial of Jesus, he says: "The impression of a historical tradition is nowhere more strongly felt than in the various accounts of the trial of Christ, analysed in Roman terms in the second lecture." And about Acts, he says: "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming."

Sherwin-White does not claim to know that the New Testament contains fact and fiction. All he knows is that it is historically accurate to the extent that he can verify it. He cannot say much about the part of the Gospels that take place in Galilee (which is most of it), but "As soon as Christ enters the Roman orbit at Jerusalem, the confirmation begins."

While he is more optimistic about the possibility of recovering the historical core of the gospels than the most skeptical form critics, he could not possibly deem them to be more reliable documents than the ancient Roman sources upon which his knowledge of Roman law and society (and hence his evaluation of the gospels and Acts) depended.

He is comparing them to see if they match up. If a historical fact is multiply attested, it is more likely to be true. So it is not necessarily a matter of more or less reliable, but a matter of "the working of the synoptic principle."

The problem for the apologists is that they are committed by faith to the notion that every story in the gospels and Acts is historically accurate.

I can't speak for all the apologists, but I do know that William Lane Craig has indicated on numerous occasions that he considers the doctrine of inerrancy secondary. And both he and Gary Habermas approach the resurrection by focusing on the minimal facts that most critical scholars agree on. I can't think of any apologists who assume that every story in the Gospels and Acts is historically accurate when they defend the resurrection.

If you're saying that the problem with Christian apologists is that they are committed to Christianity, then you might as well say that the problem with lawyers is that they are committed to their clients. This is why the opinion of someone who is independent is more valuable than the opinion of someone with a vested interest. Sherwin-White is an independent source who is not committed to the veracity of the New Testament. But even so, in his professional opinion it is historically accurate to the extent that he can verify it.

It would be easier to take your comments seriously if you did not fill them up with drivel like nitpicking over my use of the word "legend'. This is the word that Strobel and Craig used in referring to Sherwin-White's work, whereas he preferred talking in terms of "myth." I realize that "myth" and "legend" are not synonyms, but since the apologists have been using the words interchangeably, I have not been worrying about the distinction. If you want to comment here, please quit wasting my time with such crap.

There is nothing unusual about a work of fiction getting lots and lots of historical details right. Gone with the Wind did it. Sherwin-White looked at the trials described in the gospels and Acts and he found that they lined up pretty well with what he had found in his studies of Roman law. Does that mean that the gospels accurately record historical events or does it mean that the authors of the gospels knew enough about Roman trials to make the story sound real?

The way that John and Annete are reading Sherwin White is a way in which any scrap that might be used for their position, and that of the apologists they are defending, is seen as conclusive, unquestionable support for the historicity of the gospels....while simultaneously ignoring the points Sherwin White makes that may work against their agenda.

First, I appreciate the fact that you are thinking critically about this and not immediately concluding that a Christian apologist must be right. I agree with you that overreaching is wrong and dishonest and it's something I try to avoid.

But I would appreciate it if you would be more specific about why you think that we are picking up scraps that can be used for our position. If I've been dishonest I would very much like to know it, but your general impression that Vinny is right and that we're "too eager to vindicate the apologists" doesn't really help. (I'm personally not eager to vindicate anyone, but I do have the book, and I know what Sherwin-White says.)

Why do you think that a book written by a historian of ancient Rome for the specific purpose of addressing the historicity of the New Testament, and coming to the conclusions I've quoted, does not support our position? Apologists do not cite Sherwin-White in support of the doctrine of inerrancy, nor do they mention him as someone who specifically affirms the historicity of the empty, but rather, in the words of Sherwin-White, "to offset the extreme scepticism with which the New Testament narratives are treated in some quarters." Sherwin-White call that "the point of [his] argument."

Why do you think that a book written by a historian of ancient Rome for the specific purpose of addressing the historicity of the New Testament, and coming to the conclusions I've quoted, does not support our position?

Anette,

I do not think that you have fairly stated Sherwin-White’s purpose. Let’s look at what he has to say in the preface to the book: "It may be useful if someone from the Roman side looks again at the old evidence. No doubt I in turn will be quickly found to suffer from just the same lack of focus in dealing with Judaic and Christian material which is outside my sphere. Scholars attempting to deal with two worlds of this magnitude need two lives. We must appear as amateurs in each other’s field. A Roman public law and administration man such as myself cannot be fully acquainted with New Testament scholarship and bibliography over so great an area as I must venture to trespass on. But one may learn what are the questions requiring answers, and one may show how the various historical and legal and social problems raised by the Gospels and Acts now look to a Roman historian. That, and only that, is the intention of these lectures." (emphasis added)

After devoting 185 pages to this subject, Sherwin-White turns to some general comments on historicity: "So much for the detailed study of the Graeco-Roman setting of Acts and the Gospels. But it is fitting for a professional historian to consider the whole topic of historicity briefly and very generally, and boldly to state a case." It is true that the prior discussion is relevant to the historicity of the passages which are discussed therein, but Sherwin-White is careful to make clear that his purposes in that discussion are limited. The conclusions that we have been discussing here only take up the last seven pages of the book, and Sherwin-White clearly distinguishes between them and the preceding 185 pages.

If I am supposed to feel bad about not having the book or read it, and then admitting the fact in full disclosure and to qualify my statement...well that's not going to happen. I don't feel bad about openly admitting my limitations...even when someone tries to portray my very own admission as a negative.

Explain to me how not having read the book is relevant to the discussion at hand, because it seems as if all of the relevant passages, which are few in number, have been quoted and re-quoted and attested multiple times within in the comments here.

The essence of this argument revolves around interpreting exactly what Sherwin-White meant by his statements. Was he making a casual observation? Was he meaning to make a definitive statement about the historicity of the gospels?

If it was supposed to be a definitive statement, then he didn't seem to put much effort into it.

Perhaps there is relevant material in his larger body of work that would shed light in what he meant, or go into more detail? I haven't seen anyone present it in this conversation if there is.

Also, I think its funny that you chide me for not having read the work, while most people who read Strobel et. al, haven't read it either and yet you don't seem to be bothered by the fact that those who read them will likely only be exposed to the snippets that the apologists use for their own purposes.

As far as finding scholars who interpret Sherwin-White as supporting the skeptical position goes..that's a red herring. Vinny's post doesn't claim that scholars do that. AT no point, as far as I can seem has he said that SHerwin-White "proves" the skeptical position.

He has only said that SHerwin-White is being relied on too strongly and too confidently by apologists. Those are very different things. And that is what seems to be the problem here...a lack of nuance in understanding what people mean and what they write.

My comments about honesty were not about you, but the apologists Vinny mentions.

You are right that the quotes provided by SHerwin White are not in support of inerrancy, and whether or not apologists quote him in such a way is not the point. They are using his words to slant an argument in a particular direction....much like those who would quote Einstein's many statements about God in the midst of their argument, completely neglecting to to put Einstein in his own context and explain that what Einstein referred to as God is most certainly not what Christians refer to as God.

It's way of using someone, maybe even quoting them "accurately", but doing so in a way that gives the impression that the person quoted is coming from the same point of view and means the same thing as the person quoting them.

I got through at least half of your article when I attempted to read it. It consisted mostly of condescending comments about Vinny and justification for why calling something a "meticulous study" even though it is really a few sentences of casual commentary is completely justified.

Your arguments are arguments from silence.

If Vinny can't produce a scholar that specifically says things in the way you think they should be said, then you think that proves the opposite of his post. It doesn't work that way. Just because one cant say that scholars use Sherwin -White in a specific way is not the same thing as saying that proves your reading of Sherwin-White is correct.

Vinny quoted SHerwin WHite:

"We must appear as amateurs in each other’s field. A Roman public law and administration man such as myself cannot be fully acquainted with New Testament scholarship and bibliography over so great an area as I must venture to trespass on."

Why would New Testament scholars, skeptical, or believing, quote Sherwin White in their work when he basically admits that he is an amateur and there is much that he is not even acquainted with in regard to New Testament scholarship?

Scholars tend to quote people who are experts in their field, not admitted amateurs. No doubt many scholars do quote Sherwin White in his area of expertise, the history of Ancient Rome, and if it is relevant to what they are working on...but he isn't being quoted by apologists in his area of expertise. He is being quoted in support of an argument that revolves around the field he is claiming amateur-level abilities....in his own words.

If you can't discern the difference....then you have found the core of your disagreement with Vinny.

It's like taking the very casually offered opinion of a Certified Nursing Assistant when you need the opinion of a highly skilled surgeon. The CNA may have some general knowledge or ideas and be superior to the surgeon in nursing/caring for patients, but when you need to be operated on, they are not the person you go to.

There is nothing unusual about a work of fiction getting lots and lots of historical details right. Gone with the Wind did it. Sherwin-White looked at the trials described in the gospels and Acts and he found that they lined up pretty well with what he had found in his studies of Roman law. Does that mean that the gospels accurately record historical events or does it mean that the authors of the gospels knew enough about Roman trials to make the story sound real?

If I understand your position correctly from prior discussions, it's not that the authors of the Gospels and Acts lied, but that major parts of them are legend. Historical novelists get facts right because they do a great deal of detailed research. Luke claims to have done a lot of careful research as well (Luke 1:3). Are you now saying that he got the details about Roman trials and society right, but the events themselves were fictional?

Most of Sherwin-White's book simply analyzes the New Testament from the perspective of a historian of ancient Rome, to see if the historical details are correct. As you correctly pointed out, he is not a Bible scholar and he calls himself an amateur where form-criticism is concerned. He is approaching this from the perspective of a historian.

And from that perspective, he finds it "astonishing that while Graeco-Roman historians have been growing in confidence, the twentieth-century study of Gospel narratives, starting from no less promising material, has taken so gloomy a turn in the development of form-criticism that the more advanced exponents of it apparently maintain--so far as an amateur can understand the matter--that the historical Christ is unknowable and the history of his mission cannot be written."

He gives his perspective, not as a Bible scholar, but as a historian of ancient Rome, and he says that often their sources are two to five centuries removed from the event. "We are seldom in the happy position of dealing at only one remove from a contemporary source." Still, even when they're dealing with such deplorable sources, "subtle techniques of source-criticism have been evolved for the detection and elimination of various types of bias and anachronism, whether of the intermediate or of the original source, or of the writer who actually survives and transmits his work to us."

"After devoting 185 pages to this subject, Sherwin-White turns to some general comments on historicity: "So much for the detailed study of the Graeco-Roman setting of Acts and the Gospels. But it is fitting for a professional historian to consider the whole topic of historicity briefly and very generally, and boldly to state a case."

Throughout the book, he specifically evaluates the historicity of various events in the Gospels and the book of Acts (e.g., "The account of the trial before Festus and Felix is then sufficiently accurate in all its details" (p. 68)). So how did I not fairly state his purpose? I think that in the preface he is stressing that he is a historian of ancient Rome and not a New Testament historian. Nevertheless, he is evaluating the historical accuracy of the events.

You are right that the quotes provided by SHerwin White are not in support of inerrancy, and whether or not apologists quote him in such a way is not the point. They are using his words to slant an argument in a particular direction....much like those who would quote Einstein's many statements about God in the midst of their argument, completely neglecting to to put Einstein in his own context and explain that what Einstein referred to as God is most certainly not what Christians refer to as God.

I don't think they're trying to give the impression that Sherwin-White is a conservative Christian (which he would have to be to agree with them). William Lane Craig almost never quotes conservative Christians, unless it pertains to studies or research that they have done. Most of the time he quotes liberal scholars or secular historians. That lends more support to his arguments, since they are not biased in his direction.

I've heard very unsophisticated apologists use Einstein's words to support their belief in God (or to bash atheism), but that is fallacious because even if Einstein had believed in a personal God, that would not be an argument for the existence of such a God. That is not at all what Craig is doing. He is summarizing Sherwin-White correctly except for the fact that he put the word "unbelievable" in quotes.

I'm not prepared to call him dishonest because of that because I have not heard his explanation. Maybe he just made a mistake. (In general I don't like to accuse people of dishonesty because most of the time I don't have enough information to make that kind of a judgment.)

Craig is generally very careful in the way he uses his sources, and only once have I seen him actually misstate someone's position on an issue.

Suppose that the author of Luke had access to several different versions of the story of Jesus’ trial—some oral, some written—that differed in significant details. How might he go about deciding which details were accurate and which ones were erroneous? If he had some knowledge of Roman law, he would know that the details that were inconsistent with that law must be wrong and he would write his story accordingly. He wouldn’t be inventing anything or lying. He would simply be applying his knowledge of Roman law to the sources available to him in order to reconcile the accounts.

It is certainly important that the author of Luke got those details right. If he hadn’t, we might have good reason to doubt the stories. However, those details are only one piece of the puzzle. You need more than getting such details right to establish a historical event. I think this is probably why Sherwin-White was so careful to hedge and qualify his conclusions. As a scholar of ancient Rome, he was not prepared to make a definitive statement about an issue that fell outside his area of expertise.

You said that Sherwin-White wrote the book for “the specific purpose of addressing the historicity of the New Testament, and coming to the conclusions I’ve quoted.” I think this is wrong because all the conclusions you had quoted had come from those last seven pages which Sherwin-White clearly distinguished from the rest of the book. As Sherwin-White writes as the beginning of that section, "So much for the detailed study of the Graeco-Roman setting of Acts and the Gospels. But it is fitting for a professional historian to consider the whole topic of historicity briefly and very generally, and boldly to state a case." Sherwin-White views the conclusions he drew about historicity in that last section of the book as distinct from what he was doing in the rest of the book and he describes his intent in the rest of the book differently.

You said that Sherwin-White wrote the book for “the specific purpose of addressing the historicity of the New Testament, and coming to the conclusions I’ve quoted.” I think this is wrong because all the conclusions you had quoted had come from those last seven pages which Sherwin-White clearly distinguished from the rest of the book.

How can you say that the following conclusions are distinguished from the rest of the book?

"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming," and

"The impression of a historical tradition is nowhere more strongly felt than in the various accounts of the trial of Christ, analysed in Roman terms in the second lecture. Consider the close interdependence of Mark and Matthew, supplementing each other even in particular phrases, yet each with his particular contribution, then Luke with his more coherent and explicit account of the charges and less clear version of the activity of the Sanhedrin, finally John, who despite many improbabilities and obscurities yet gives a convincingly contemporary version of the political pressure on Pilate in the age of Tiberius."

Those are strong statements and they come at the conclusion of a book that is about the trial of Jesus and events in the book of Acts. So clearly there is a connection.

There is a difference in tone between most of the book and the last eight or so pages, but that is because he is at the end of the book giving his opinion on "the agnostic type of form-criticism." For most of the book, he is simply discussing events in the New Testament in light of what he knows about ancient Rome, and evaluating their historicity.

It is certainly important that the author of Luke got those details right. If he hadn’t, we might have good reason to doubt the stories. However, those details are only one piece of the puzzle. You need more than getting such details right to establish a historical event.

Well, the difference between the historical events in the New Testament and, say, Gone With the Wind, is that the latter could have been about any spoiled southern belle, whereas events like the trial of Jesus and Paul's appearance before Felix and Festus are extremely unique. How many people were delivered over to Pontius Pilate by the Sanhedrin with the charge that they claimed to be the king of the Jews, and were then crucified?

What Sherwin-White is saying is that the subtle dynamics of those situations are exactly right, based on what he knows. And since four sources discuss the trial of Jesus, and they complement each other in the details rather than copy each other, he can make a strong statement about the historicity of the trial.

And he is willing to extrapolate as well, at least with secular historical sources. He says about source-criticism in general: "Hence we are bold to trust our results in the larger fields where there is no such confirmation."

However, he is cautious about expressing himself too strongly about the historicity of the New Testament in general. I think this is in large part because these are not typical historical documents since they contain supernatural events. And if he's not a Christian, he probably wants to avoid taking a stand on that issue, and wants to just give his professional opinion on the details that he can confirm as historically accurate.

And beyond that he just wants to "offset the extreme scepticism with which the New Testament narratives are treated in some quarters."

I've updated my own blog post to reflect the comments you've been deleting. I seem to be getting some traffic from here already, as one poster has already commented. So I appreciate the help - controversy helps to generate interest. However, stifling debate is not really a winning strategy on your part I don't think. You might control your own blog, but you don't control the internet, as much as you might wish you did.

How can you say that the following conclusions are distinguished from the rest of the book?

Sherwin-White says that his only intention in the lectures is to “learn what are the questions requiring answers and to show how the various historical and legal and social problems raised by the Gospels and Acts now look to a Roman historian.” Fulfilling this intention did not require him to decide whether the stories were legend, propaganda, myth, fiction, fantasy or fact. In other words, he did not have to draw any conclusions about whether the events actually occurred in order to fulfill what he said was the only intention of the lectures. Most importantly, in order to fulfill this intention, he did not have to draw any conclusions in any area beyond his expertise.

After fulfilling his intention for 185 pages, Sherwin-White says “[s]o much for the Graeco-Roman setting of Acts and the Gospels.” He then turns “to consider the whole topic of historicity briefly and very generally, and boldly to state a case.” When he starts discussing the extent to which the New Testament stories are composed of historical fact, he is going into areas of scholarship in which he says he appears as an amateur. Not surprisingly, he carefully hedges and qualifies his conclusions in this area.

I can say that Sherwin-White distinguishes the conclusions he draws in those last seven pages from the discussion in the first 185 pages for several reasons: (1) those conclusions go beyond what he declared to be the only intentions of the lectures; (2) he introduces “the whole topic of historicity” as a new topic that is distinct from his discussion of the Graeco-Roman setting the New Testament stories; and (3) those conclusions required him to go beyond his specific area of scholarship.

When a scholar says “[t]hat, and only that, is the intention of these lectures,” I think it deserves some respect. I think it is somewhat misleading to make any claim about his “specific purpose” without addressing what he says was his only intention and I don’t see how you can claim that Sherwin-White’s specific purpose was to draw conclusions that went beyond what he said was his only intention.

Good for you. I have no expectation of controlling the internet. I merely wish to maintain a pleasant environment on my blog. I hope that everyone who is interested visits your blog. If anyone who does so thinks that you have raised an issue that I should address, I hope they will raise the question here with greater civility and honesty than you have demonstrated. I will be happy to respond.

Sherwin-White says that his only intention in the lectures is to “learn what are the questions requiring answers and to show how the various historical and legal and social problems raised by the Gospels and Acts now look to a Roman historian.”

Again, you are failing to put Sherwin-White's words in context, and leaning to heavily on his qualifying statements.

In the preface, he says: "I observed also--what is common to all zones of scholarship--how out of focus can be the vision of even the acutest New Testament historian, although he is acquainted with the latest trends in the study of the Roman empire, just because inevitably he has not been able to immerse himself in the Roman evidence and the Roman aspect until its understanding becomes a second nature. It might be useful if someone from the Roman side looks again at the old evidence . . . No doubt I in turn will be quickly found to suffer from just that same lack of focus in dealing with Judaic and Christian material which is outside my sphere . . . We must appear as amateurs in each other's field."

Then he goes on to say that he is "trespassing" on the field of New Testament scholarship and bibliography.

So he is giving his perspective on the historical accuracy of events in the New Testament, as someone so familiar with ancient Rome that it is like "second nature." But he admits to being an amateur when it comes to form-criticism, or the writings of New Testament scholars (p. 187). So although he does criticize the extreme skepticism with which some of them approach the New Testament (p. 193), he does so cautiously.

I'm not sure if you have a copy of the book in your possession at this point, but if you open it up just about anywhere he is evaluating the historical accuracy of some details in the New Testament based on his knowledge of ancient Rome. He doesn't say, "This happened for sure!" But no historian can make that kind of statement because the events are in the past.

But he does make statements like, "The impression of a historical tradition is nowhere more strongly felt than in the various accounts of the trial of Christ, analysed in Roman terms in the second lecture." And he says that right after a discussion of secular historical sources.

So he did go way beyond just learning "what are the questions requiring answers." He seems to be going out of his way to seem humble, because he addresses these issues of historicity in detail throughout the entire book. And at the end he does come to a very definitive conclusion about the historicity of the trial of Jesus and the book of Acts.

I can say that Sherwin-White distinguishes the conclusions he draws in those last seven pages from the discussion in the first 185 pages for several reasons: (1) those conclusions go beyond what he declared to be the only intentions of the lectures; (2) he introduces “the whole topic of historicity” as a new topic that is distinct from his discussion of the Graeco-Roman setting the New Testament stories; and (3) those conclusions required him to go beyond his specific area of scholarship.

Vinny, please read the rest of the book, or at least skim parts of it, because your interpretation of those words contradicts everything he has done in the book. Leaning too heavily on one or two sentences and ignoring everything else is proof texting, and you are going to arrive at an incorrect conclusion.

And why would he make such strong statements about the historicity of the trial of Jesus and the book of Acts if he really had no basis for making them? And he obviously does have a basis for making those judgments because he has just finished analyzing their historicity in great detail.

Sherwin-White is giving his perspective as an expert on ancient Rome, not as a Bible scholar. And he makes a clear disclaimer that he is not a Bible scholar. But the Bible scholars look like "amateurs" to him when it comes to their understanding of the Roman empire.

(Again, thanks for this discussion. It continues to be intriguing.) I must ask your indulgence (again, because you have the book.) Did Sherwin-White indicate he as an “amateur” in “dealing with Judaic and Christian material” or did he say he was an “amateur” as a “biblical Scholar”?

That's a very good question, and what he says is: "No doubt I in turn will be quickly found to suffer from just that same lack of focus in dealing with Judaic and Christian material which is outside my sphere." (Italics added.)

So it appears from his detailed analysis of the trial of Jesus and the book of Acts, that he considers this Christian material to be within his sphere. He does discuss it in great detail, focusing on nuances in the biblical text and interpreting it in light of what he knows about the Roman empire. He also refutes skeptical challenges to the historicity of specific parts.

And in the end, he reaches the conclusion about these two parts of the NT that I've already quoted.

Now when it comes to everything else in the Gospels, like the historicity of the stories that took place in Galilee, he is more cautious. That is outside of his sphere of expertise. But he does say: "That the degree of confirmation in Graeco-Roman terms is less for the Gospels than for Acts is due, as these lectures have tried to show, to the differences in their regional setting."

I don't own the book. I read it the whole thing three years ago when I obtained it through inter-library loan, but I only kept the preface and the last seven pages because I had never seen an apologist cite any other part of the book. I think my local library got it from a university library that is about an hour away from my home so I cannot easily review the rest of the book.

I really don't know what to make of your charge that I am relying too heavily on his qualifying statements. I think his qualifying statements are the context. They tell us how he wanted his affirmative statements to be interpreted.

I have no doubt that Sherwin-White had many ideas about what parts of the gospels and Acts were historical and what parts were not. For all I know, those ideas exactly correspond to what you and the apologists would like to attribute to him (although I tend to doubt it). Nevertheless, if you are going to appeal to someone as an expert in a particular field, I think that it is intellectually illegitimate to attribute any stronger opinion to him that he was willing to have attributed to him.

I understand that he was evaluating the the historical accuracy of the details in the various trial accounts in the gospels and Acts and I don't doubt that he formed an opinion regarding whether those accounts represented fact or fiction. However, that question was outside the scope of what he intended to address in the lectures and his qualifying statements indicate that, as a scholar, he declined to take a public position on that question.

When he writes that"[t]he impression of a historical tradition is nowhere more strongly felt than in the various accounts of the trial of Christ," I don't think he is saying any more than "this sure feels like history to me." However, he speaks in terms of "feelings" and "impressions" because he doesn't have the expertise in all the other areas of the New Testament that he would need in order to take a definitive position as a scholar.

BTW, the high school chess team that I coach is playing in the state tournament this weekend so I will be away from my computer until Sunday.

I'm also going to be busy in the next few days, so ending the discussion at this point would be fine with me. But I just want to reply to this point:

I really don't know what to make of your charge that I am relying too heavily on his qualifying statements. I think his qualifying statements are the context. They tell us how he wanted his affirmative statements to be interpreted.

I have to strongly disagree with you there. If you look him up on Wikipedia, you'll find a quote from his obituary, posted in The Times (footnote 5):

"Arising from his studies of Roman law and administration, this indicated "his conviction of the essential historicity of the narratives in the New Testament',[5] especially in the critique he mounted in his closing pages against "form-criticism of the extremer sort'.[7]"

If his obituary said that he was convinced of the "essential historicity of the narratives in the New Testament," then his qualifying statements are not the context. They are just his way of being cautious and not overstating his case.

BTW, the high school chess team that I coach is playing in the state tournament this weekend so I will be away from my computer until Sunday.

Thanks for not deleting John's last comment. He made some good points.

I have also had a chance to read some more of the book and wrote a blog post responding to your general argument. I figured I would give you the opportunity to rebut it since I link to your blog. (And let me know if you want me to remove the link.)

I didn't notice John's comment when I got back Saturday night. I have deleted it.

I don't mind you linking to my blog at all.

I really don't see any point in discussing this much further. I just don't buy the idea that I should ignore what Sherwin-White says about his own work in favor of a quote from a colleague in an obituary, particularly when all I have from the obituary is a blurb on Wikipedia. That does not seem to me to provide a legitimate basis to ignore Sherwin-White's qualifications.

If you don't care about the truth, then you're right, there's no point in talking about it further. I see that you've decided what to believe regardless of the evidence. (And as I've spelled out in detail in my blog post, the evidence directly contradicts your position.)

Sherwin-White clearly stated his intent in the lectures. You seem to think you can ignore what he said because you know what his "specific purpose" really was. Moreover, you think you can prove what he really thought by appealing to a quote from an obituary that you found on Wikepedia. You are the one who takes him out of context because you insist upon reading his statements without the qualifications that he attached to them.

I just saw this post. Not even the promise of eternal bliss could make me read through these comments in their entirety, but I wanted to comment on one thing that Strobel said,

I had wanted to believe that the deification of Jesus was the result of legendary development in which well-meaning but misguided people slowly turned a wise sage into the mythological Son of God.

He loves to do this. He always portrays himself as having come to his "quest" either from an objective, unbiased perspective, or from a perspective biased in the direction of unbelief - and his admirers and sycophants simply eat it up.

To the contrary, he wanted desperately to believe, even if he wasn't consciously aware of it at the time (although I'd suggest that he was aware of it, but has long since convinced himself that wasn't the case). The "arguments" he employs, together with those that won him over (both comprising the low hanging fruit of Christian apologetics) are so simplistic that they could only convince someone who wanted genuinely to be convinced by them (and wasn't overly bright in the bargain).

As soon as a Christian says "Strobel", I stop listening (if I've even consented to talk to him/her in the first place, which I generally don't do any more). Even if everything he says weren't pure drivel, I refuse to be lectured to concerning the state of my immortal soul by someone with that haircut.

Vinny, btw - the next time you get into an argument with these people regarding the accuracy or historicity of the NT, you may find this useful:

http://www.tzemachdovid.org/israel/feldman.shtml

It's the transcript of a talk given by Louis Feldman, a classicist and historian at Yeshiva University in NYC, in which he explains that the account of the trial can't be factual, as it contradicts Jewish law.

It isn't an academic paper, but it contains some genuinely useful information, of which Christian apologists are unaware because they haven't been exposed to it.